green
Positive treatment
Trending · 102 recent citers
20.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2007
2016
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 23 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Dionne
(3×)
See State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 88 , 905 A.2d 1101 (2006) (defendant could not prevail under plain error doctrine with respect to issue of first impression), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Chavez
(3×)
See State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 88 , 905 A.2d 1101 (2006) (defendant could not prevail under plain error doctrine in part because issue raised was matter of ‘‘first impression’’), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see"
Flomo v. Commissioner of Correction
(3×)
See State v. Fagan , 280 Conn. 69 , 123-24, 905 A.2d 1101 (2006) ( Vertefeuille, J ., dissenting), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S.Ct. 1491 , 167 L.Ed.2d 236 (2007).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Estrella J.C.
(3×)
See State v. Fagan , 280 Conn. 69 , 101 n.23, 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S.Ct. 1491 , 167 L.Ed.2d 236 (2007).
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Apt
(3×)
Spe- cifically, under § 54-142a as interpreted by the majority, the defendant may testify under oath—truthfully as a matter of law—that he has never been arrested, but third-party witnesses may testify to the contrary about the defendant’s status as a person on pretrial release, and the official records that would conclusively resolve the dispute over a technical legal matter pertaining to the defendant’s status as an arrested person on release; see State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69 , 100–101, 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Woods
(3×)
See State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 90 , 905 A.2d 1101 (2006) (‘‘[t]he first two Golding requirements involve whether the claim is reviewable, and the second two involve whether there was constitutional error requiring a new trial’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Dzwonkowski
(3×)
See State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 90 , 905 A.2d 1101 (2006) (inadequate plea canvass implicates due process rights), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Ricketts
(3×)
See State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69 , 107 n.24, 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Jordan
(3×)
See State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69 , 89 n.14, 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. FERDINAND R.
(3×)
See State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 77 , 905 A.2d 1101 (2006) (“[w]here a particular crime requires only a showing of general intent, the prosecution need not establish that the accused intended the precise harm or precise result which resulted from his acts” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Claudio
(3×)
See State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 90 , 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Larsen
(3×)
See State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 77-78 , 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Connor
(3×)
See State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 90 , 905 A.2d 1101 (2006) (“[t]he first two Golding requirements involve whether the claim is reviewable, and the second two involve whether there was constitutional error requiring a new trial” [internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Barnes
(3×)
See State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 82 , 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Wells
(3×)
See State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69 , 107 n.24, 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. Griggs
(3×)
See State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 87 , 905 A.2d 1101 (2006) (plain error review is extraordinary doctrine that should be used sparingly), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. TD
(2×)
See State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 101 , 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 127 S.Ct. 1491 , 167 L.Ed.2d 236 (2007); Oliphant v. Commissioner of Correction, 274 Conn. 563 , 579 n. 17, 877 A.2d 761 (2005) (writ dismissed, D.
examined
Cited "see"
State v. T.D.
(3×)
See State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 101 , 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Brandon
(3×)
See, e.g., State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 105 , 905 A.2d 1101 (2006) (observing that revocation proceeding may ‘‘requir[e] an end to the conditional freedom obtained by a defendant at a sentencing that allowed him or her to serve less than a full sentence’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Papantoniou
(3×)
The alleged error therefore is not "plain in the sense that it is patent [or] readily [discernible] on the face of a factually adequate record, [and] also ... obvious in the sense of not debatable." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jamison , 320 Conn. 589 , 596, 134 A.3d 560 (2016) ; see also State v. Fagan , 280 Conn. 69 , 88, 905 A.2d 1101 (2006) (defendant's plain error claim addressing sentence enhancement under General Statutes § 53a-40b presented issue of first impression and, therefore, Supreme Court "[could not] conclude that the trial court committed a clear and obvious e…
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Lage
(3×)
See, e.g., State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 90 , 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Cutler
(3×)
Plain error is a doctrine that should be invoked sparingly. . . . [invocation of the plain error doctrine is reserved for occasions requiring the reversal of the judgment under review.” (Citations *327 omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kirk R., 271 Conn. 499 , 507-508 n.14, 857 A.2d 908 (2004); see also State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 87 , 905 A.2d 1101 (2006) (plain error review is extraordinary doctrine that should be used sparingly), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
examined
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Bowman
(3×)
Plain error is a doctrine that should be invoked sparingly. . . . [Invocation of the plain error doctrine is reserved for occasions requiring the reversal of the judgment under review.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kirk R., 271 Conn. 499 , 507-508 n.14, 857 A.2d 908 (2004); see also State v. Fagan, 280 Conn. 69, 87 , 905 A.2d 1101 (2006) (plain error review is extraordinary doctrine that should be used sparingly), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S. Ct. 1491 , 167 L.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Damon FAGAN, petitioner,
v.
CONNECTICUT.
v.
CONNECTICUT.
06-8714.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 5, 2007.
Cited by 106 opinions | Published
Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Connecticut denied.